Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about what content is provided and how omitting the 'fields' parameter returns every fact. This is useful behavioral detail beyond the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists key facts. Every part contributes meaning without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity, single optional parameter, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main content areas and parameter behavior, though it does not detail exact return formatting or the full set of possible fact keys.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents the 'fields' parameter and its omission behavior. The description adds value by enumerating valid fact keys (positioning, offices, team, distinctions, clients), helping the agent construct valid field subsets.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly indicates the tool provides structured facts about Dribba and lists the fact categories. It is distinguishable from sibling tools about projects and services. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', so it is not a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when company facts such as positioning, offices, team, distinctions, or clients are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.